Lingering Questions about ‘Jekyll and Hyde’, with Haiku Review

I’ve been sitting on this post for a while, because I was almost ready to roll with it when ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ posted its notice. No matter what I think of a show, that’s always a sad occasion, and my heart goes out to the talented bunch in the show, who all deserve to be in longer-running, better shows.

That being said, am I going to let the show off the hook? Absolutely not! I have been secretly looking forward to seeing it for months, ever since they released their vinyl-scented-Hot-Topic-Haunted-House-sex-orgy promo video. I do love a mix of camp and power belting, if I do say so myself, and the promise of the corsets AND pop stars AND Victorian murder shimmered with the promise of that most ethereal and elusive of guilty pleasures, the ‘fun bad’. I girded my consciousness with two Joe Allen martinis and sat down in my seat, thinking this, maybe, was the moment after all. The moment when I could relive the combination of stunned disbelief and inner joy that I felt when I saw the original production, and knew that I would be re-enacting Jekyll and Hyde’s hair-flipping solo duet (Soet? Dulo?) for years to come. As I have.

So did the new production deliver? Meh. Perhaps it is the Dramaturg in me, but I found myself more often pondering the many questions the show prompts than delighting in a gothic fun-fest. So I thought I would share a few of my thoughts about the show with you all, followed by the haikus that I wrote in my head during the epic stretches of show when… you know, I can’t even remember. Some stuff happens, I guess. But certainly not character development or anything (how about those female characters? Like the one who sings in a soprano and is loyal and pretty, or the other one who belts and is sexy. Not since Mama Rose has there been such complex characterization).

Anyhoo, here are my lingering questions on the show:

1. Really, they have no better way to store their insane people? The show begins with Jekyll bemoaning the state of his father, who is confined to an insane asylum. But when I say confined, I mean strapped to a tiled wall a few feet into the air like a giant moth. Now this is sort of an interesting visual in a ‘Tom Waits in Dracula‘ way, but you just stare at him and think, isn’t there a better place to store this guy? Like, say, the ground?

2. Okay, seriously, nobody recognizes Hyde? Because he is literally JUST Jekyll with his hair down. And a coat. And yet nobody seems to have any idea who this mystery man is – not the hospital board members who have been following his career, not the lawyer who has known him for years, not the prostitute who is in love with Jekyll but has regular sex with Hyde (and who sings of looking deeply into Jekyll’s eyes, so presumably she knows what his face looks like). Seriously, though, guys. It’s not like he’s wearing a Scream mask or dressed as his dead mother – it’s JUST the hair. This begs the question of how Jekyll has been living before then – has he tried to change his look occasionally and discovered that nobody recognizes him? Did he cut his hair once and have his family call the police on him when they thought he was an intruder? Inquiring minds want to know.

Who is that mystery man?!!? Oh wait, is his hair HALF back?! Does that mean he’s mid-transformation?

 

3. What exactly is that contraption in Jekyll’s lab? Because it looks like the world’s largest beer hat, if it were designed for the gay club Splash. And how exactly does this whole formula work? Jekyll requires a lot of chemicals, and then seems to have a little soda bottle of the formula, which he then droppers into a series of large beakers of a clear (or red, given the disco lighting) liquid, which then turn green. There are eight of those things, which attach to tubes that attach to a neck collar and a sort of android-looking wrist thing, which Jekyll wears the first time. Why do you need eight tubes of the same formula? Wouldn’t one suffice? And if later he drinks the formula, why doesn’t he just do that the first time? Wouldn’t that be easier?

CHUG IT! CHUG IT!!

Wait, is that a water bottle he’s holding?! You’re not even TRYING, show.

4. Does anyone in this show make good decisions? I mean, really, you can’t get a series of victims more responsible for their own fates. The hospital board members are being slowly picked off, and yet only one of them is like, “hey, clearly there’s a pattern here, I should probably leave.” But that’s nothing compared to Lucy, the tragic prostitute, who receives a letter saying she is in grave danger and should leave immediately, with a wad of cash so she can do that. But does she pack her few things (which seem to be primarily white cottony underthings, even though we really only ever see her in red and black leather) and book it out of there? Nope, she decides to sing a power ballad about her hopes for a new life. Now, I am no fan of blaming the victim, but I do think that if you receive a letter explicitly saying to leave immediately because a murderer is after you, then you decided to do some power belting about it instead of just scooting, your impending murder is a little bit on you.

 

And now for the poetry:

 

Just calling it now -
My new nickname for the show
Is ‘Dreckyll and Hyde’.

 

Where is this show set?
According to the accents,
Deep South Aussie France.

 

An epic battle
Between a man and his two
Competing hairstyles.

 

 

What Look Was Madonna Going For at the Met Gala?

Last night was the Met Gala, which is both the Oscars of Fashion and the fanciest theme party of the year (the gala celebrates the opening of the Met Museum’s big yearly fashion exhibit). This year the theme was ‘Punk’, and some really interesting things happened. There were some people who simply ignored this and went for old-school glamour:

Amanda Seyfried in Givenchy. I want this dress SO HARD.

some that went halfway and took a lovely gown and then added just a touch of punk in the form of insane eye makeup or extreme hair:

I think the look on Julianne Moore’s face really captures that moment when you’re on the red carpet and then remember that your hair looks like it should have a little tiny surfer right on the top of it.

Remember the first time you ever put eye makeup on but didn’t really understand how it worked so just filled in everything up to the eyebrows? So does Ginnifer Goodwin.

And then there was Madonna.

I have to give it to her, because she was really the only one who captured the “fuck it all” attitude of Punk (isn’t it a little ironic that this whole party was the fashion establishment doing a look that was entirely based on being anti-establishment?). But at the same time, I do wonder exactly what look she was going for. So I’ve come up with some options:

Madge.

1. Anjelica Huston’s character on SMASH, Eileen Rand, if ‘Bombshell’ fails and she has to become a dominatrix.

2. Comedian Emo Philips starring as Sally Bowles in a concept production of ‘Cabaret’ in a regional theater somewhere.

3. Prince Valiant as a ‘business formal’ Frank-N-Furter.

Haiku Review: Macbeth

A genius actor
And a cool adaptation
So why am I bored?

Why You Should All Go See ‘The Poor of New York’

Hello all!
Are you excited? Is there a slight frisson in your demeanor? Are you restless as a willow in a windstorm, as jumpy as a puppet on a string? Did you think it was maybe just spring fever? Well you’re wrong. It’s because this weekend ‘The Poor of New York’ is happening at the Connelly theater, and that’s pretty exciting. And if you’re thinking to yourself, “why is that so exciting, Anika?” Well cool your jets, people, because I will tell you. So, without further ado, why you should be excited about ‘The Poor of New York’:

1. It’s a melodrama, straight from 1856.

Oh sure, you’re thinking, a melodrama. Why is that special? We all know what a melodrama is. But do we really? This was the most popular form of theater of its time, and some of it is still in the DNA of today’s theater. And yet melodrama is almost never performed today, unless it’s mocked or just namechecked as a trait of bad theater. But there’s a disconnect there – how can a form that audiences loved so much in the 1800s, a form that is an illustrious ancestor of theater today, be so entirely dismissed? Have you ever actually seen a melodrama as an audience would then, taken seriously as a story told in front of you? Don’t you want to? Well now’s your chance. ‘The Poor of New York’ is one of the greats of the form, written in 1856 by Dion Boucicault, so popular that it spawned productions in other cities and countries. And it’s being done as truly as possible, without a wink.

2. It’s being done at the Connelly Theater

Melodramas were actually staged there when it was newly built! It’s blocks away from Five Points, where the play is set! You can see a melodrama from the 1850s in a miniature opera house from the same century! I’m not saying this is your chance to live your dream and wear a bustle dress to the theater, but this is your chance to live your dream and where a bustle dress to the theater.

3. It’s bizarrely topical.

The play is about the unscrupulous business dealings of a rich banker during the New York Financial Crisis of 1857, which lead to the world’s first global financial crisis. This is a quote from the 1931 program:

“Panics come and panics go, but the theatre
goes on forever. We doubt that the present
depression will last forever, either in the
theatre or out of it. When we hear the char-
acters of the play talk of “over-speculating”
“the fall of the stock market,” and so forth
in the Currier and Ives atmosphere of 1857,
a dim echo of recent conversations comes
down to us from the forgotten past. Thus
history repeats itself even to the failure of
the United States Bank in the time of Van
Buren. We should add that we have not
“doctored” the script in any Way, as might
be supposed from the almost startlingly
modern references, such as that to the United
States Bank failure.”

       A little eerie, right? Melodrama gets a bad rap about only being about silly soap opera dramas, with cartoonish villains and delicate ingenues and dramatic twists. And while it no doubt is partially those things, it clearly also felt the same desire to make people look closely at their own cultural and societal realities that we feel in the arts today. In the never-ending conversations about theater’s role in human life, and politics and theater, and theater history, melodrama must be given a seat at the table. The form might be relegated to the musty halls of history, but the questions that it asked were as vital and topical as any asked by theater today.

4. You can say you knew them back when.

      You know when you see something by a famous genius person, and you think, gee, I wish I had seen what they did when they were starting out, because then I would feel all cool and in-the-know and could brag about it forever. Tyne Rafaeli, who’s directing this, is one of those people. To meet her is to think, “this girl is the coolest,” to talk to her is to think, “this girl is the smartest” and then to hear her talk about theater is to think, “dang I’m glad I’m meeting this person now, because someday when she’s a famous genius person I will feel all cool and in-the-know and can brag about it forever.” The Producer, Michael Csar, is also one of those people, and I’m pretty sure will be running all European theater/opera someday.

5. Look how cute the poster is!

6. I don’t usually write about shows in this way.

     If you’re a regular blog reader, you might be noticing that there is something unusual about this post – I don’t usually try to convince people to go see something. But I also feel it is my duty to bring your attention to something that you might otherwise miss. Plus, I am legitimately very excited about this, both because of the people involved and because, as someone interested in theater and its history, seeing a melodrama fully staged feels like an important piece of my theater-going career. So go here and buy tickets, and you can thank me later.

Haiku Review: Kinky Boots

Why bother writing?
Just hide your show’s problems in
Drop splits and glitter.

The show’s true title:
‘The Full Billy Elliot,
Queen of the Desert’?*

Some really fun things
But oh my god those accents
Are not one of them.

Odd dude, Charlie Price:
In act 1 he’s a great guy
Act 2, a bigot.

I’d totally wear
The finale’s ‘riding’ look
I am not kidding.

It could be great, but
Cheap muggy pandering
Drowns out potential.

*Partially stolen from my genius sister.

Happy April (Un)Fools!!

It’s April Fool’s Day, that holiday that is both weirdly unfettered (is there even a cultural history? Or did someone somewhere once get in trouble for a prank and go “well I had to, it’s… uh…. the special day on which you play pranks on people!!!” and then it stuck?) and yet still much more fun than many other holidays (looking at you, St. Patty’s day, aka ‘the day that the MTA gets coated in a layer of green beer bile’). And I suppose that in honor of the day I could put something up that was itself a spoof, which many people do very funnily and well. But on April Fool’s Day, I personally like to take the time to remember the amazing and hilarious things that humanity has created that were not intended to be funny, but oh how they are. Like, for example, this classic – a music video version of ‘The Rum Tum Tugger’ from Cats.

So watch, enjoy, secretly think to yourself that it’s okay that you’re attracted to a giant singing cat because your brain clearly knows somewhere that it’s really a human and so it’s not bestiality at all, right?, and remember – sometimes the only difference between cool and absurd is a few years. And a synthesizer. And a human-sized faux-fur-covered unitard with a tail.

An Open Letter to ‘The Phantom of the Opera’s Christine Daaé

Dear Christine,

Hey girl! I just went back to your show recently, and had a surprisingly great time. And you look great, honey – that is some fantastic hair! But I just wanted to write to you and check in, because I found myself worrying a little bit about you.

Okay, so first of all, you do know that that’s not really an angel of music, right? I mean, I know your dad said that whole thing, and then magically there’s this person who teaches you how to sing in his magical catacombs and all, and I totally understand why you would think that. But let’s be honest, honey, that is a guy who voluntarily wears a cape and a mask and lives in the basement. I’m not even going to ask about what qualifications he initially presented that made you think he would be a good vocal coach for you, because this is not a place of judgement, but I think you should really consider being a little less trusting in the future. And I know that a guy having a life-sized sex doll version of you dressed in a wedding dress is really flattering, sort of, but I think that would be considered a big red flag. I mean, look, I have a lot of trouble with dating too, but sometimes it helps me to think about whether I would like to see something on, say, an Okcupid profile. Like, if you saw a listing for a guy that included a cape, a mask, the whole basement thing, a nickname that includes ‘the’ and the inclusion of a sex-doll version of you, would you be sending him a message? No, you would not. Even if he did say that he was sent by your dead father. Which, let’s be honest, is really really creepy. Do you really think your dad is up in heaven hoping that you hook up with your damaged music teacher?

Oh, that’s another thing. What exactly was going through your head when you were going into your dad’s tomb to meet up with the Phantom? So you were thinking that your dad sent this guy, but also maybe that he was your dad and summoning you? In a sexual way? Look, honey, I don’t really want to know, but all I’m going to say is, therapy.

And look, Raoul seems great, really. Handsome and rich, what could be better? I’m not really sure why he calls you Lotte when your name is Christine, but hey, that’s between you two. But don’t you think it’s maybe not such a great idea to jump right on into a relationship with a controlling guy when you’re clearly already working through some stuff with another guy who loves controlling you? I mean, Raoul doesn’t even listen to you when he’s all “come to dinner, Lotte” and you’re like “I can’t, there’s a guy in my mirror who tells me what to do and he’ll be mad” and he’s like “ha ha ha, whatever, I’ll be back in a jiff to take you to dinner.” And then later he pushes you back onstage to be with the phantom in his creepy sex duet! That is not a supportive partner, Christine! And look, I know that you guys were happy at the end to have escaped the Phantom’s evil lair, but did you guys have to go off singing your love duet? Couldn’t you have waited until you, say, got upstairs? That was a little insensitive, Christine. I mean, I know he’s a creepy obsessive basement-dwelling murderer, but he’s got feelings too.

But all this stuff is really secondary. What I’m really wondering, Christine, is what YOU want. It’s a heady time – you’re so talented and beautiful and special, and I’m so glad it’s all working out for you with the whole opera star thing. But is that even what you want? I mean, you don’t seem to know which man you want, or whether you want either. You don’t even want to sing initially – Mrs. Danvers and the Degas girl have to push you to do it. The only thing you seem to want in the whole show is to have your father back (which, let’s be honest, isn’t going to happen unless there is some zombie sequel, and please god I hope there isn’t a zombie sequel), and to have someone who can take you away from all this. But there is someone who can take you away from all this, Christine – you. You don’t have to sing if you don’t want to. In fact, I think maybe you shouldn’t. I think maybe you should just leave all this opera stuff behind, dump those two losers, and go find out who Christine is for a while on a beach in Hawaii or backpacking across Europe or something. Just, you know, maybe not in Coney Island, mmkay?

Love,

Your Friend Anika